HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/21/1975N A
I'
G
Ni
� 14 q
ALUMA CITY PLANNING" ��-
PET
OCTOBER 21 1975
I �, I � COMMISSION
HALL , ,
CITY (COUNCIL "NG'
MEETI CHAMB„ , . � � � I � '�
REGULAR
dl
pll ERS CITY, PETALUMA7 P.M' CALIFORNIA
I. P:LEDGE'ALLEGIANCEq FLAG
L" Comm `wBOnd 'Head 'H'illigos,s r+ Hor;ciza Popp
Waters' Wright
STAFF • D I , I I " R chal eh 1j , - Planning _ ' Direc to'r
a . •Ass oclate�'P1'anner'
�.:
�Iail. ! APP, RODAZ,
•
I
P
CORRES ONDE CE
, I ally.
!I •41 �
I
I ,.
" MARTIN" GAVRiLOFF 'LETTER- Request `by' Martin; 'A.• Gavr Toff e'oncermng" illegal
u.
convey v g
DISCUSSION `OF ILLEGAL' signs °' f "garages''nto li in 'fa'ciltes.
u I I ' I I � ilq il„ � i I ' , .. � I q • I 4 . 1„ .' Ii' hi :: Y. �!_ � ' ' ' ^.:C'. f
CONVERSION
a E
LARRYµ PERKS = SIllT ""
deration r.' the, ' remodeling
Site ;design ` "'rev 'ewf consi fo
DE IGN ItEUIE W : �,
1, S
an co nversion of an ex, gtmlng °single - .family res�i-
I
�I ngton'S,tree't to areal estate
de'nce at 829 E. Washi
•
office" „
A`DEVEL P
NTAS
-° ub'11c' He a n t con 1. rig o sider -the adequacy of the
P
I c hl •.Q
'WEIR'` FOR' MILLMEISTER
Draft-iE"ironmdnt =' Impac't 'Refrort"submitt'ed° by pel
d ,�P,ROPE R -TY.•I
Davis �& Ass'oczates i in
guid'el'estsfomthtion
compliance Stat`en e Planned
h �
propose y ,,Qantas.
+
D`eue� 1 pme`trC"Corpora�tivelopment
on for '•the 'M7filmeister
I ,
p'
roperty'.on No.i`�McDofaell Blvd, „
SS �. „�i p
OTHER BUS INES
A ointment::: of ICommis�aione'ttee�
, ��Sub'divisioncCommit
&PSate' Des °gn °R`ewi.ew+ ='Comm � -
tee "^ ^and Historic &Culturd'1'IPres- ervation Committee:`
it
I AD, JOURNM ENT
Adjourn to study session on the; Rules-- and - Regulations
I I
„
•
I
° of the. P,l'am[i•ng•' Cgmmrssion.
,h ,
I 91 I.
, r
r^� a ,. ' 1 i. ,` i , ., ` .. w. - •
,i n • h. ,,:,a :i
. L., i G ' r �_ ,I "I 'i � � ,II I � t',ai�; ,l , • i '! ,, 'i , I I�,4: 1. , ,I. „. , ., ,., i .w ' ' ',,, , � .0
M I N..0 'T E. "S
I
r
II ER 21
TALUMA CITYIPLANNINI „1.:�I. �u �OC30BP.M ��197'S .,
L .
. I 1 � G COMMISSION f ,
n
II NG �� q �'i� °�� j. T ALIFOR!ilk
CITY `COUNGI�L° 'CHAMBERS Ch HALL° P "E
GULAR MEETI
- - 1ALUMA., C" .. ..
Ali IW i I 1 .:� " ' '.r' I J , i' ; I ,„, „ . .II• G� + �
PRESE , 1 >
NT. Comm
Bond ' Head " Horciza Waters, Wr' t
I i ��, ugh : s I
� *Le at 9 25 ��'p:
il l
ABSENT Coima H lligdss, � lopp " .l., p „. .. •
°
'STAFF Denrisr'Bo'ehld'e; Planning " Dire''et'or !
a � � Leo , t P , Rachal Ass,oeiate Planner
°' T e minutes �' PP _
I I „i I' 1 �
I � °`!°�.�'�;�I:','9 f 0 a roved as submitted:. .
I I I V OF MINUTES T k
APPRO h I h .nutes o ctobe.r .14 1 1975 were
� POND"" Mr,. Boehl, e�advis.'ed the Coumiss�Ion ,that.'- t a�'pettion °co,ntainng
;II u Administra`to`r, ,signatures had,en 'addressed to -the Zoning
aP Y g
Petaluma from' esidentsi in the
rl are'ar sur, --
r me forme the ”
f'
the° � - ,. r
i
l i `, y I , F �q. I I ro„ g, I e and, Gu.�danc.e� Center
� , Y
Keokuk ',Convalescent ) located d t 1 Monroe.S;treet. He
p
tiln a now managersthof the Petaluma t,t '-and bad
P
„ G in' August re:q
in g Permit them to come. in and
Y been forwarded nest "g'
talk about, obt n a new Use Pe t o.r possible vio
g
lastolettert4orwa l'stin Us'&' Mr Bo`
Ii • Ji''� Permit a ehlje advised that the
1; I
al f rded on October 14 .1975, was the standard letter
,
tt r
lowi`n'g '20ll'd'ays :from receipt. . "`letter for - the - applicant
o come ieto compliance with the conditions of the Use Permit -or have
i,t revoked. The ':assumption of the original U'se Permit was'that
there- would'Ilbe ia,, max mum. * of $3 b:eds" for , ger;�aat c, p:a.tients with.,,, ,
Ps ehid- lescen.tsbuemos� and the remainder of the facility would'
the C ` s understanding,, that the �ac�lity . _would be, used 100% f w
Mr Boeh1 & advised �thatl it was no
�.,. e s u
however, P o that fact would have" to be
a,
� mental,:pat- ents' all ages.,, �-
i , � , „,• ,I I L clarified I - r. •
as . lt Boehl'e�itioners were regis-
tered voters andlland . toowner , whether th'e j et advised discussion, that land
I
k
ownership was 7no't', required' to,.s,'gn, a ; petit'on. He stated, that :a,
p c.,
ubli hearing would hel d sometime -in November. Mr:
° ° H,Boeh�l e a t' ls ° ,o: , st'at'
y '. P Y
ed `tha the etitao'� aware%,,6fi th'el 'pro”
cedures the" City lias to follow and ;the fact. that those • procedures
had already been,l
Mr. Boehl�d advised I that av` phone c v'
• . • on' :e'rs'at'on_ °the P '
II i N "iIlII ;I'll n
Of beds "beingr r eveal e d,
used, 'butcouldnot a breakdo'wn'of the speci'fi
he co i
c_
u's'ea e 1 t Tl7
they,- e. 11ceriSl,. g g. see what y,
t
I , v ^il g � �
L n a new check to t beds air- e l actually
ey do ot s
'
„ J.l +� being ;� ,cc4ldd until . the new= ,owners ; notify, them. Mr. Boehande used for
Y saying I �,n b e in g
'.
pr ma -i -ly ig eriatrw, c pat.rent's as it wastassumed a time
th&
cone u e sa in that the Use.Perm
ofl issuance�,„of, "the Use Permit.
I
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,.,Octob.er 21, 1975
MARTIN GAVRTLOFF ;Mr.," B'oehlj;e .referred to the staff r.ep,ort' x:egarding, illegal con
LETTER DISCUSSION version of garages to living'fa'cilities, and informed 'the._Com-
OF ILLEGAL m 1ssion they .were not 'being asked to deal with `a zp;ecific case,
CONVERSION: but with 'the. overall "problem: The Staff report .was then 'brie'fl-y
reviewed and comments from the Commissioners were requested..
Comm. Wright stated he felt this was a ,classic example of' over
legislation,, and he ,felt ' ordinance reg41ring the one 'covered
parking space: should be done away with. He added that perhaps, the
Ordinance should require that new units should contain one covered
parking space, but it, should be left' up to the - ,- , 'individual property
owner after that.. Comm. Wright also did not fe_dl fines ot. penal
ties were in order. Comm,. Head voiced his,agr:eement and also
stated -that if a person 'had- the option at the time. of,
tion,,'they could possibly cut down on the cost of their home., He
also stated he felt that alternate #4 of the s'taf'f report' utilizin "g
the Grandfather Clause. for 'all, existing illegal ,conversion,§', but .,
1`evying a stiff_ penalty or' ;fine upon any future :illegal con - ver-
s -ions, should be adopted, Mr. Boehlje .informed Comm. Head that
there were existing procedures, in effect for remedying any illegal
construction work accomplished without.d "building permit, and the
Commission was to: deal with the situation. 'of the 'Zoning _Ordinance
requir -Comm. Head exp- ressed' his concern that the last
property owner could ,be.?mad'e responsible for bringing his''buildng
up. to code alfhough he may. not' have been the violator. Mr.
Boehlj`e replied. that .if' someone applies for a building permit and
violations' are .found at that time, the; .building .would have to ,be.
brought up to code:.
Comm. Waters expressed his concern that from ",a legal position it
might prove to be emb'arras'sing, to the, City .if the Zoning, Ordinance
was changed since it would g_ue the homeowner a ,clean ;bill of
.health for something that - had done in disobedience of , the law..
He'als'o stated that since insurance on 'homes is based on..codes and
.standards, the City might. be underwriting the fire insurance on
'the home. Comm.. Waters stated 'th'at ignorance 'has never been an
excuse to disobey the law. Mr. Boehle clarified -that elimination
'.of the . requirement ' of ohe. covered parking space for .each dwelling:
unit from the Zoning Ordinance would not eliminate the requirement
to obtain a building permit f'o,r construction, He also stated that
the City could not 'be held responsible for illegal. work done
without a bu ld'inga permit and this 'deletion in the 'Zoning Ordi-
nance would, , legitimize that work.
Comm.. Head moved to eliminate the requirement for orie� covered
parking space for each dwelling unit from the Zoning Ordinance,,,
and also to utilize the Grandfather' Clause for ,exiating illegal
conversions, but 'levy a s "tiff; p.enal,ty or fine ,u.pon any future
illegal conversions. Chairman Horciza advised him that the
correct': motion 'would be to make 'a recommendation to the City
Council that action, be initiated to' so amend the Zoning Ordinance.
Comm`. Head replied that' he would amend his ,motion accordingly.
Mr,. Boehlje advised Comm. - Head that he was„ in effect, stating; two
V .,P
ma "
i�,o
u annri
l�etaluma' City P'1'" g
M u
nute's, October ;21 1975
Comm Mi � . 6 h
+ .
di nt th g or ,on p
f rom
the Zoning- Ordz
SP'ffere" each dwelling �un•�. a �� °equirem`ent
for g
., .
nance there° would ° - be; no heed lization of the ,Grannf`ather
�
� f or IJ f' g for levying a stiff
C ena
w
1t ne Idrtfuture l i alnconvers ons . Comm." Head .started +
p Y ille g „
that.he wished,to rephrase `his ,recommendation to° the City `Council.
overed a
to eli te rkin '. each
mina p
dwellin n Ordinan ce . , . Comm. �'Wrgg seconded "
g g
unit onw S had e
�
1
. ed� -f he Commssionht�
Bond question_ i t in fact
beenmaskedr ",'Comm.
for _a r �'`by the City Council - ''Mr. 'Boehlj'e
. .
� ^ had gees . sent,, to the;
e ed m rtb
� it ;e Ci�t 'ng er who "in turn
t,
Ma y orh heilCity Ma
Mayor, thet referr
q I , 1IIII
�:
ad pla ced it on the Council agenda •or October 27th and asked
ht "
tOctro�r. to that date since
1
t hat t e Planning Commissio '
g n consider p
r :. II
it .was, a ��planning matte .
h'
Comm: "" Bond' questioned, °the 'reasoning behind the present requirement
r o red s er ,en .unit Mr. Boehlje
` fepli
e`d' tha"�t� secularkin gwiling
`' re'. covered'. aPkin w .
d. P d of'f- street is necessary to
elate orp ,reduce vandalism. . a lso advised that it is a good,,
for m 1•ti-= fami3�.
q y units be cause.it gives the renter
requirement
me, se - curl, y. r B'oehlje,,Ista-te& that, since Commission was
so t M
leaning p, y g req ui r ement o
p er
gone covereda arkin s�ace dwel"ling� unit, perhaps itshouldb
P g P pbe'
:
no
cans u t required .after that. time.
truction b, 1 1.
u .'
Comm'. Commr.1WrioYitnew r •
stayed e, felt somet
an `asset go ;.the:,'a earance^ ;of tlieoho,use, eliminated the
pp c garage w ms.at.tached,..Comm. Bond stated it
qb
I might'b.ews;e to „j „iz�sistuponr one' covered parking space for new
c on ruct then allow. and, the allow for•garage conversion with some type
-
oaht'ernate'. off °'. - street pawed• parking. Cg mm'. Waters stated he
f he 'City
C not g be t done e withouglding c a
publ'iceheapen
a ' acing for
nd shoul' d
„
ato
further, l op in l onin �� 1
b th
Zoning' nance�wasrmadeed rthae Gommission, it would
chap e the. Z g y
I r,
' anning ,.
th the P1 ,.Com
o to .�th e Cty�,.Council :, who could en,+, dir
.'
er initiate action to change the Zoning Ordinance
m ssion to either
til ` of ,the Zoning Ord npnce., .
now ora to w
,
a.th GI . s,sionn.that{ ahzsew
He reminded 'action would .involve. ublic;
hear,ings :.
'
Comm. . , i ' � r � � ,
+�g stated tfi'at� Tn secondin'g the motion to eliminate_ ahe
Wr ht
p
m the e
,, Zoning Ordi-
, p g,. p' I P j
i i i ,
nance '''e un11
factor•, and he
r�„ r,
' � • +' � ��� �������� '
� tended'��to� �� Comm.•,�Bond�,;,or'e ar „ diri retain�n the on e
h
� kin g apace�-and-i requesting alternate offgs�treet park ng
Par king., q g .:
�,
� s „, ��.;,
- , r'
ifvconaersion is' ! „: Comm.!. Head, Ilthe. eupon �� withdrew ,phis -
motion „to,recomm the City Council the elimination of the one
�
��endstoed.
covered ,parking' �s;ppze_., ,per, � dwelling .un.it .
�; 11 .. r
,
M actin Gavr •
r. M
' ^� f 'addressed' !they Commission : :; '' informing"them. that
i s osi- position a .real estate agent he: confronted with. this
�
"
Pn FHA or V.A. f.nancz :nggcomes i ts
robl ' nto the picture.., since
-13-
'Petaluma City- Planning Commission ,Minutes, October 21., :1975
y q tt be sent from the City stating that the house
meets the 'building cod .• He advised* he was not only concerned
what would happen to hi& . cl en t,, .but. also �as to what would happen
to o;thers,� in simil'a'r areas: Mr.: - .'Gavriloff - requested that some
type of,.action'be taken. to _clear up the matter; even if unfavorable :.
;He then questioned if covered off. - street patking is eliminated ass
discussed, how many off - street parkin 'spaces' would still be
• r- equi'red::
Discussion followed regarding; ,a recent request by Young America
Homes to decrease tte. driveway width' and its. relation to this.-
situation.. Mr-., Boehlje clarified- that the Zoning Ordinance calls
for one covered and two uncovered parking spaces per dwe'l'ling
unit,. . advised' that the Commission cou- ld''reta-in this require -
ment in- itiall' - and ,then require three; uncovered parking ,spaces
,later if garage' conversion took place:.• Comm:: Waters; stated he,.
felt both' the driveway wi.d.th, and this pr.,o'blem should `be looked at
dur =g the annual review, of .;the Zoning Ordinance., Mr:. Boehlj,e
replied. - that the City Council was looking 'for some type of indi-
- cation as to how - the- Planning Commission felt at -this: time as to
whether they should proceed with abatement pr,:oceedings,.or..what .
course of action would' provide .a satisfactory. remedy.
Comm. Head., stated 'he wished to go 'on. record as recommending to the
g
City Council that-they consider- uti-1 ziri the Grandfather Clause
for existing illegal, conversions but' a stiff penalty or
fine upon any fiture illegal conversions. He .advised that this
would give the City Council something, consider, and a public
" hearing would have to be held on the matter anyway., Mr. Bo:ehljse.
advised that• this action- would be entirely different, from what the
Planning "Commission had' indicated- was their general consensus..'
Comm. Bond, ,questioned if the Commission' °was to, address 'themselves_
to the Grandfather Clause at all.. Mr. Boehije ad-v sedgy that the,
Grandfather Clause would .apply tq the - requirement -s for covered -
parking, not the .r- equi.rement.'to take, out building permits. He
clarified. that if the recommendation was to raquire, one ,parking
space initially, but then, all conversions, the Commission .would.
not have to deal with. the, Grand. father Clause.. Mr.. ;Boehlje added
that building c'odesi would :still.'apply - and people would s ill.-need
building permits for' • conversion:s. Comm. ' Head's, motion died for
lack of 'a ;'second.
Comm. Wright..moved'to recommend. to,-the City Council that the
present Zoning Ordinance b.e ^changed to :delete the requirement of
one covered parking, spa'c'e per each, dwelling unit, except for new
construction, with," the addition -that,, if' the covered. parking, space .
is taken away.for a dwelling unit, i -t be'repla•ced by an uncovered
parking space that has °been paved and•conforms to the existing
Zoning' Ordinance. -Comm. Head seconded 'they motion.
AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSENT 2_
-4-
'Italuma C, t
Planning Commissiion M�ihutes�� October 21 1�.' 75 ;�� ���� A li. �
d "'
J ef'1 ex lain nversi.on of an
' Mr Bo y p ed the request for
ehl e ' brie.
.�, a
nce at `829. E
' SIGN ;• SITE existing reside' as,t ,�Was "Str,eet "to a "r.eal °esta!te'
e He _clam me house that`, Sousa
� �
� "eve10 in l "r, for c'onve'r sion for
P, ache6o D p man q
„
�o�ffice� use� , Mr Boehle ad�ised� ,the Architectural „
�
Site' Design- "Review Committee had not- 'cons•ider,ed the project
r
since' it was minor and!',�was'',the' only site i deslgn item on the
agenda.. ,
a Commission for
! p ns were _,then furnished l g
t the Plannand
ohe.free
.: -shin ,
�- d n'g sign,. :and Mr-
review, Comm,. 'Bond . questione -
y approved
had „been incorrectl roved on the
a h
�y u. the 'free-
ptiorJappl ''icataon'handhi -fsthe p went' a PP cant wc e.
i varancshes
. Comm. ,;Head ,
i n :� ve tout 'apply for a.
stands s hey will ha�
. � g �; � �.
,.
gues,toned if this se "' Street has been
g
wdened its fulles atsthis.Stime Larry Parks
TI
re on the lot is only about 6 inches deep and 6
�
feet�l.'ong the;'corn'er cl'gsest to Payran,lS`treet,. and thd' e-fore
this site would not' be affected
� , ondit';ions � ,
of a "prova'1 as proposed by the
Mr Boehl. e rea;d the' c p
r Parks informed the `Comm ssion he was in agree-
staff,, Mr: `Lar �
r nditions'and t o was the ,, sign
ment with these�co
He referred to the City's. _s'ig"" abatemeh program, and stated
h
•- •• "at
• put
would not wish, to, ,a sign' ii now ghat hewo take'
down - later_. Mr. Parks also stated that if educes
. ' �', theuabatement roc'
•
,. en;" he -• woulld� ,feel d-iscr minated a - aP
did not ins effect ha , nst„
P ' g
since Dav-i& Realty had just put; up a 4 new sign, .'and the same con-
d'it- i;o'ns :existed "' on-"th'eir', site as wt he,' ubj.ect site. Mr.- B'oehlje
rep lied, ,that to tell' whent: they, actual Iabatement �
would be' s;tarted, but clarrfled 'that if a vaxia'nce'was applied' for
"d here would uld be no 'abatement of this sign.
" �r.ante
'The "cobs :of th"e- "'stuec& was questioned, -and Mr_ Parks clarified
that it would b white we h a: d round. the building.
would o ,'isunowlwoo
further fhk the, build ing wood. He ding, which
does no;t meet fire code standard's -Mr. Boehlje added that the
_ Pin'g!' �.
,existing landscaping' would be retained and additional landsca'
woud. provided The alignment of rvewa. was t
I& y. hen briefly
be
„th'e
discussed. o'
Comm -.'• Wri ht' ex ressed co cern a " still living in
g P
,u d
", this area,,and the.yohad s'ay „•on 'how-, the
q- r his
od wo
neighborho uld `b'e develop .ed.: 'Mr '; Boehlj e replied that the
p
� .,
,�. � g _� , ,
onform: u'ses and the area was
.,
e properlylfor' , the
,
zoned use
_:Comm-. - Head, � a motion to accept
p
C f
�'.
i „ , r , •
etstaff ..s1tCommS1g Wxiwhthl se'ocondedons
app_rovalmade .,
'. ., as r �:
ecommended` b th
the-, motion;.
AYES 5 'NOES '' ABSENT,
-5-
„
Petaluma City Planning; Commission Minutes October 21, • 1 -9.75
QANTAS DEVELOPMENT •.:•
Mr Leo, .Rachal Associate. Planner, informed the Commission he,
CORPORATION EIR
w,ished t'd d Lscussi the : adequacy of . the ,Environmental Impact Report ..
FOR MILLMEISTER
: for the ^ proposed•,Planned Community Development prezoning.'f or' the
PROPERTY:
Qantas • Devel'opment Corporation a ,, He .then. „brief,.l.y ,summarized the
staff report.. The ,Commission,.was informed.: that the City Engineer's
.-Comments had, been, furnished just: prior, t'o th•is evening; Mr. Rachal
•
then. 'bx ie'f 1
y'• summarized them _ He • advised . that the s aff ,recom-
'iendation w,a.s to take =:no action on the EIR.,certification until the
necessary addendum information is -incorpora.ted,nto the final EIR.
,Mr: Rachal further advised -that: the cost.o.:f.an. EIR is not to be
- considered a limitation for .adequate analysis. 'Mr'. Rachal stated
that in.,, all .fairnes,s %to the Planning. Comm s's,ion and con sill `tana,, it
~
is - di`fficult� to competently. quantify. env ronmen al data and m-
_
pacts;+ ,it. is even Orel dif to ,cite potential results of
= -
impacts. • 'Nevertheless, he advised that there -are paraine'ters to
'work within and:'that;is what the assessment of adequacy is about
iii! the..EIR -- is -a, ull d,is,closure:.do'cumen:t within •the ,guide-
lines of the Cal iforn ^a..Environmental-:Qual `ty Act. Mr. Rachal
concluded by saying that there,is: a common philosophy 'in envi=
ronmental planning; that there, is no 'free .lunch. °'' there are
:.
trade- offs; but b'efore:.,p'lanner;s. and decision- makers can embark, on
�..
these•, t,rade-off's,,. they must, competently deal with the basic
r °.. ..
impacts -,and, cumulative impacts, ,and ;they must be adequately
s:
-
pr�esent:ed b, the, consultant,.
Comm,. Head :.g;uest oned ,the ,adequacy of 'the••gui el nes that have
been furnished to the - consultant 'by :the City for its preparation,
inasmuch as;-there were many diserePancies in the EIR.. Mr.. Boehlje
•advised. that the, City. ,guidelines were in compliance with t <he State.
.guidelines;, and he explained, the EI•R” prepa- ration procedures. Mr.
y . r.
Boehlje also: staged he did not feel. there was extensive criticism
:of this EIR- biit .rather that there` L were,. points that needed clar
'fication or�cor,rection,-and it was in :the best interest of the
Commission, to! hold .off : certification until these points were "
corrected. .
Comm Head stated tha,t. reviewing ,the. El•R, it did not appear
that °the location was even•,desirable for',resident.ial development,.
I •was his„ opinion ,that in .`the future,, if -the City Allocation
Board is going to be involved in r.evewing' a= project, an 'EIR
should be provided. at, that time. He stated that this procedure
woul& determine if the .land. "was .suitable for development before
the developer .had', gone,. through, considerable , expense:.. Mr. - Boehl e"
„• .
replied . that ther e are app:r.oxiinately 10: to, 20 applicants each year
under the Residen'ti -I Development. Control. rSystem, and that there
was no assurance that of the se applicants would .receive develop-
meat allotments;; therefore, the' expense of preparing an "EIR, which
could, be, : appr,ox ma'tel -y, • $5 : ,_000 'to ,$i5, . would be: to.o expensive
. .when the developer Was not, certain if " '-he, .would be awarded: an
, tment,
a o. Mn., ,Boehlj',e added that just the awarding, of allotments
does not, insure that the developer will be allowed to build, since"
this project must,• be p.rezoned, . annexe'd,, Andithen 'subdivided, and
•
in fact, the City'-may not want the, development for various reasons.
-6
I •
Petaluma .City
`Planning Commission Minute's', October 21, 1,975 '
is I II
::,
inf - ormin, g il them .that the;
•
.
' man was to be and obfain
aaldi
statnt
tle` besltG krelab,le infprmaton p "ossible,'s that''in
ed to
this particular consulting assignment,, he had,tr' be more
concise, .in, accordance with . .Commissi.on" s , r.equ'e'st a't, the time: of
the last at most, o'
I info'Dmati"onaltor f
the, ;wereneither requested
rovided °t,here'f= =.ore, Iw,he d not. that
ex pan s ion* p
q ,�
an Jo g
willing
ma d be whin to
or ch`an be re u r.'''d ,aiidJ.he wound
R �� was neces's,aryoi Oil
rovidelwhateverl
° q g ta e. ;to includ the com -, .
l andamake s trie n ad
; ust !ent'slut
ested,_Mr
menu gg Davis replied that
p
it would take a . roxiinatel two "`weeks .: , Co un_' Bond questioned `f a
pp y
time, ,o
continuance of o r if it would
impair y' ro.cedureseof,�the, d'euelobersufMTCi Jn
P �P P n Joslyn; Qantas De-
velopment° Corporation, stated that he. felt it,•would impair' hi "s
p:.
I
procedures,•°�and •'that 'he had'.liop'ed thaw certification would be
a�ccom 1- ishedy .
p' within the twq week „' `Mr; Boehlj,e stated that
the staff” .needed additional' time "after rea:eying the irifo'roration
i � li'ave "'•
d he
to Vie ref erred back denagenc .es 'Head stated h
f'e'lt these" comments xshquldi;be 11ri °,the; report, already.
Comm, Bond! moved � that .`the p'ulbh'c• "hear'= ng be con inu ed' to 'the
second regular meeting.i.n November. Comm Waters seconded the
motion. T'Ne public Ihearing to. ,discuss any ';poss 'b_le adverse impact -
of',the project,was then opened. Mr Boeh1je stated he wished to
,::
address, hims'elf °to Comm. Head' +s.° comments .regarding the fact that
reviewing, '. . -
•d ld ve b`een.11presentedl in ° ,,,the
mmssonha� the preliminary draft
"rafteElR advised themCon
yl .
he staff and is� sent out
other' gene es�because reap.dealnof -,
g of time to an:
II
ss Therefore;' the EIR is the first °
a� raft
neies to review t .- length d'is-
opportunitggtheseprocn e .
_hav
L
ussion. on''the �p'rocedural p;ro,cess of It was no
c ' ' 'EIR_ s :f ollowed was-noted
Bond had to leave the meeting at. 9 2'5 pk�m. ; because of
r
" 1 P . g
i �th'is. �an� the "ub�l�ie lieariri Hadn't' been open at, the
d the, fact that,
' 71,..: •.I dr
4 he motion was made, a vot e was-not taken on his motion.
time ,.
t
, I IP „ J'. I 6', � :.
I Comm ri ht made' a motion Ito �continu _ the., hea'ring`,to, °'
W ' e
November 18th. Comm Waters secondedt
_ he motion?
c e
Mr. Jon 'Joslyn' , asked the .. Commission: if th'eI 'public hearing, co uld be
c`losedcontinuing,
since con tinu 'n it, omm ent
g would allow add�'itional��c" to °�be
-
-°
g felt the process m s
made at ,the November 18th meetin ght then
'
be,dela since,Del.Davis might conceivabl have.to.answe'r'
lay again, , $. Y
staff s re
t
I
c'omme_iidation�is ,,also •t ort�'tthetComm�he II' ,
„_ „ I ssi,on nee` •"
hat _ d`s t"o
consider is not before. them: Therefore, the recommendation is to
' continue the public hearing, and any„ further considerations tha
p would be p er ,,. He added that a
further comments the Nbvemb,,e 18th meeting could b e
— 7'—'
Petaluma City Planning Comission Minutes, October 21., l "975
:.
' furnished between the •time, of the cettificati.on by the Planning
'Commi•ss` on, , a.nd` before' it ,goes• to' the City - Council. Mr. Davis,
•
= state`d' �that'he felt Mr: Joslyn was co;rrect,, inasmuch as coritin-
u.ance 'of the'.pubhc hearing•- would'=allow or more public testimony
.t:o. which- •heTwould,'.have to• feply•• n spec-if ic He .therefore,
•,could' end ,u,p publishing t_he, ,report thr'ee .time's.. Mr., Boehlj
replied that tie would ':not have to )republish tfie report. `b.u't could
briefly add'r'ess t'he,'comments forward -t e'm in the form 'of an
addendum. to.. the City Council. .:Mr ' Joslyn questioned .if that
proc'edu;r:e could not be'' util z°ed right- now. "Mr. 'Boehlj,e, replied
that his recommendation -at, this p "pint. is` tha -k it is not in the
best interest of the Planni - rig Coiihiss on to" certify the draft ;EIR
es' being corre'ct at this tim .V e.• •Mr . Boehl� advised that if the
Commission•wished- they could cl'ose hearing and then
. not have further public 'input at 'th °e• November l8th me.eti n'g .. A
discussion followed with, regard 6o some, of the agencies who had
not yet repylied% ' 'It - was' noted •that'. the 45 'day .review period for
' x(ev ewing.. agencies enc'ies ha'd•exp red. Mr.'•Joslyq stated he agreed that
=" th:e comments made• were" subject? to ' c'onsidera'tion by the Commission,
'but, writ °inual inflow should not be Mr . Boehlj e replied
= !that; unt l: the 'documena ;is 'ac;tua'1'l-' satisfied Eby` the Planning
• Commi "ss'on,, it i's open t:o public review. Comm., Head stated tha:
- the'peo;ple. had an opportunity"to-talk tonight at the public
Bearing, arid, therefore he :felt the pull ic- hear should be
s , :AYES 1. NOES 3 ABS 3
�
Comm. Head moved to" .act upon ;the..EIR on ate' 18th of 'Nov :emb;er,
' • r.; "' '' subject to. all .of. the discrepancies being corrected. Chairman
Horciza' -then closed the p'ubli'c hearing., -Mr. Del Danis stated , that
he 'felt' the :proper action would be that the would
a consider -,the ad'eq.uacy, 'of. -the report , at the-November 18th meeting,,
K and i All- of -these corrections' were made, -to- certify it.. Comm_.
= Head amended, his <moti.on accordingly.: . Comm. "Wagers seconded the
,mo tion.;.:
AYES 4 " NOES; 0. _ ` ABSENT . '3 .
OTHER BUSINESS:, -Chairman Horciza'mad'e•'the f=ollowing, .appointment to. "var.ous com
:mittees`
Architectural & S!ite., Design Review Committee' , :
Comm Anthony Wright - Comm'. -. Edward Horciza_
'Subdivision,'. Committee
Comm .Patricia • Hilligos ; sa .
Historic '& Cultural-. Pxeseryation. Committee.
'Comm G. Roland. - Comm`, Le&t.er Popp
-'8=